1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Leica vs Leica

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by twentythree, May 31, 2012.

  1. twentythree

    twentythree Mu-43 Rookie

    Jan 15, 2012
    Lismore NSW Australia
    I recently had the chance to play with my stepfather's Leica M-Summilux 35mm f/1.4, and I thought it might be of interest to compare this $7500 piece of glass to the Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4, which I own (and which costs a whole lot less).

    This is by no means a scientific comparison, however, it is interesting how close these two lenses are in rendition. I suspect they have similar internal construction.

    I have cropped the full size image from the 25mm to match as closely as possible the 35mm frame of view.

    I have also included a 100% crop of each image for pixel peepers.

    Both images were taken with the E-M5 at ISO 500 and 1/80 shutter, wide open at f/1.4.

    Hope someone finds this interesting!

    What do you think of the differences, given that one lens costs 10 times the other? Can you guess which is which?

    7307681340_5fab57b8ae_b. 7307683096_aa2602049a_b.
    • Like Like x 2
  2. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Can't say which is which, all I can say is I like the second photo better. It just seems more "true" in the out of focus regions.

    Another thing I'd like to point out is, the photos reminded me of something I've read about the EM5, I think it was on the phoblographer site. They stated that the EM5 renders images "like film". And this is what I see here in the shadow areas especially. Which makes it almost painful to consider that I'd have to wait for June 15 at the earliest, to have mine... :crying:
  3. 35mm lux is up to $7500 .. didn't know that. I just might buy one locally and resell it the next day.
  4. drewbot

    drewbot Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 21, 2011
    Toronto, ON
    My guess is that the first picture is the 35 Lux..based on its shallower DoF of the figurine.
  5. twentythree

    twentythree Mu-43 Rookie

    Jan 15, 2012
    Lismore NSW Australia
    Spot on drewbot!
  6. Touche

    Touche Mu-43 Rookie

    Mar 22, 2012
    Lux is top (based on shallow dof and more zoomed in crop)... But I prefer the bottom pic. :) 
  7. Markb

    Markb Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jun 9, 2011
    Kent, UK
    Just out of interest which version 35 'lux was this?
  8. Uwharrie

    Uwharrie Mu-43 Veteran

    May 10, 2012
    North Carolina
    Lynne Ezzell
    Don't know which is which but I prefer the second lens.
  9. twentythree

    twentythree Mu-43 Rookie

    Jan 15, 2012
    Lismore NSW Australia
    Hi Mark,

    It's the ASPH, SN 3636631.
  10. phrenic

    phrenic Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 13, 2010
    I also prefer the 2nd lens.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 14, 2012
    New Mexico
    That would be my guess, for the same reason.
  12. soulofoto

    soulofoto Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 21, 2012
    I like the second lens better but actually like the colors in the Leica lens fotos a tiny bit more...I think...

    they are more golden..warmer
  13. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Yes, but you can fix that in a few seconds, from the RAW file. You can't fix the character of the OOF parts of the image (well you perhaps can, but then what's the point?)
  14. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    I also prefer the second - the photo is brighter, cleaner. Just a matter of preference, though. I suppose color can be adjusted in PP. Interesting comparison, thanks.
  15. zpierce

    zpierce Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Sep 26, 2010
    Minneapolis, MN
    Wow! Help me understand, why do people pay that kind of money for a lens?? :) 

    I prefer the second as the first seems underexposed. However, my untrained eye sees no significant quality difference. Certainly nothing that would cause me to want to pay more for the first lens, let alone 15x more..
  16. LovinTheEP2

    LovinTheEP2 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 15, 2011
    I personally straight away like the 1st image better. Has a more natural feel. The 2nd image is very "digital", bright and "dull" in the way that seems lifeless.

    That being said.. obviously from an IQ perspective no unless you dont PP heavily and what images straight OOC with a certain feel to them. But like many luxury items .. it's about the pride of ownership, exclusivity and buying into a brand.

    1. The Lux is hand built vs. mass produced, hence the high price.
    2. The Lux is ultra rare with limited production, hence the high price.
    3. The pride of saving up, getting one and joy of using it.

    It also goes to show how amazing some of m43 lens offering and how much of a bargain they are - including the 75mm at under 1,000.
  17. Redridge

    Redridge Mu-43 Regular

    Apr 17, 2012
    Wonder what it would look like if the lux was shot with a full frame... thats's $15000 vs $1500.
  18. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Hmmm...I didn't realize that crop factor extended to price as well, but that totally makes sense. :wink:

    As far as the images, the biggest differences I can see between them can be attributed to focal length more than to lens quality. Now if one of you guys can just send me a Summilux 24mm f/1.4 and a Pana-Leica 25mm f/1.4 I'll be happy to post a comparison.
  19. mr_botak

    mr_botak Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 4, 2011
    Reading, UK
    Not to difficult to tell - The Leica is top - right? Now which do I prefer. I like the colour in the first, apart from that, about even.
  20. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    That serial number was used in 1993. FYI this lens is almost unobtainable on the used market as only 6000 were made. It may actually be worth more than the current new lens to a collector.

    It's edge to edge performance on a 35mm frame is excellent, even wide open. It was a significant improvement at rhe edges than almost any othe lens available at that time. Using it on a 2x crop would negate some of its advantages over the modern Panny version.

    However that doesn't take away from how good the Panny lens is. It has always stood up on its own.

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.